This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Introduction

In some studies including small populations of patients undergoing specific surgery,
an intraoperative liberal infusion of fluids was associated with increasing morbidity
when compared to restrictive strategies. Therefore, to evaluate the role of excessive
fluid infusion in a general population with high-risk surgery is very important. The
aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of intraoperative fluid balance on the
postoperative organ dysfunction, infection and mortality rate.

Methods

We conducted a prospective cohort study during one year in four ICUs from three tertiary
hospitals, which included patients aged 18 years or more who required postoperative
ICU after undergoing major surgery. Patients who underwent palliative surgery and
whose fluid balance could change in outcome were excluded. The calculation of fluid
balance was based on preoperative fasting, insensible losses from surgeries and urine
output minus fluid replacement intraoperatively.

Conclusions

Introduction

Volume management in the perioperative period has played a pivotal role in morbidity
and mortality in surgical patients even though it receives less attention nowadays
[1,2].

Fluid administration is generally accepted as doctrine for resuscitation of critically
ill patients in many clinical circumstances including major surgery, shock and trauma.
The biological rationale for such therapy is that fluid losses should be replaced
to maintain homeostasis in order to prevent organ hypoperfusion and subsequent organ
dysfunction [3,4].

Volume management in surgical patients is dictated by the volume status, maintenance
fluid requirements, insensible losses and losses to the extravascular space [5-7]. However, hemodynamic changes (vasodilatation and myocardial depression), and primary
or secondary inflammatory changes (increased vascular permeability) are also factors
that can influence the volume administered [8].

On the other hand, emerging data show that the type, timing and amount of fluid may
affect the clinical outcome. Thus, synthetic colloids can increase the risk of acute
kidney injury [9], the administration of early fluid therapy in sepsis may improve survival [10], and delayed fluid therapy in patients with acute lung injury may increase the duration
of mechanical ventilation [11]. In addition, the accumulated positive balance probably contributes to increased
morbidity and mortality [12-16].

Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of intraoperative fluid
balance on the postoperative organ dysfunction, infection and mortality rate.

Method

After approval by the Ethics and Research Committees from Clínicas Hospital (São Paulo
- SP), Servidor Publico Hospital (São Paulo - SP) and the Cancer Hospital (Barretos-SP)
and registering the study in the National System of Information about Ethics in Research,
a written post-informed consent was obtained from each patient or legal representative,
and the study was conducted in three tertiary hospitals. It was an observational study
whose inclusion criteria were patients aged ≥18 years undergoing surgery that required
postoperative ICU.

Exclusion criteria included patients undergoing palliative surgery, with short life
expectancy, patients with renal failure, patients with NYHA class IV heart failure
or ejection fraction on echocardiography less than 30%, patients with diagnosis of
diabetes mellitus (prior diabetic diagnosis or after fasting for at least eight hours
and two perioperative glucose readings higher than 126 mg/dl) [17] and those who refused to participate in the study. Exclusions of the clinical conditions
above were established because of their influence on fluid balance, potentially interfering
with the study analyses.

The preoperative maintenance of fluid used 10% glucose solution to supply 2 g/kg/day
of caloric intake [18] due to preoperative fasting, but it was not added to the calculation of the fluid
balance, as well as blood loss intraoperatively, because it would be very difficult
to standardize the calculation about blood loss among the centers. In addition, the
colon preparation was only accomplished in 0.63% (n = 3) of the patients involved
in the study; for this reason they also were not quantified in the fluid balance.

The calculation of the fluid balance was considered as the sum of crystalloids, colloids
used during surgery minus the sum of urine output plus 2 ml/kg/h during preoperative
fasting plus intraoperative insensible losses (third space losses) of 1 to 2 mL/Kg/h
in patients undergoing orthopedic, vascular and neurological surgery, 2 to 4 mL/kg/h
in thoracic surgery and abdominal surgery without bowel exposure and 5 mL/kg/h in
those undergoing surgery with bowel exposure. However, the maximum of 5 mL/kg/h was
considered between preoperative fasting and intraoperative insensible losses even
if the sum had been higher than 5 mL/kg/h [5-7,18,19]. According to the anesthetist evaluation, the criterion to guide intraoperative fluid
replacement considered hemodynamic parameters such as blood pressure, urine output
and heart rate. Postoperatively, the clinician had, as a goal, the improvement of
perfusion parameters.

All patients were followed during the remainder of their hospital stay and 90 days
after they were discharged. Postoperative organ dysfunction was evaluated as: cardiovascular
(need for vasoactive drugs or vasodilator for more than one hour despite fluid resuscitation),
respiratory (partial pressure of oxygen in the blood/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) <200, reintubation, difficulty in withdrawal of mechanical ventilation in the postoperative
period), renal failure (creatinine increase by 50% or urine output less than 400 ml
in 24 hours), neurological (behavior change, forgetfulness or psychomotor agitation)
and coagulation (platelet decrease by 30% from baseline). Furthermore, ICU infections,
length of ICU and hospital stay were also evaluated. The criteria used for the diagnosis
of infection were made and revised according to Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
guidelines [20].

SAPS 3 was evaluated at the time of inclusion [21], and the worst values of the variables at this time were used along with the American
Anesthesiology Society (ASA) physical status classification system [22].

Finally, the patients were divided into two groups: survivors and non-survivors. The
analysis of sensitivity and specificity considered the value of fluid balance with
best accuracy for hospital mortality, the value was chosen by Youden's index (sensitivity + specificity -1). This value was used as the cut-off point to consider
excessive fluid balance or not, and to evaluate complications and outcomes after surgery.

Statistical analysis

Initially the demographic, clinical and physiological features of patients included
in this study were described. For the description of categorical variables the frequencies
and percentages were calculated. Quantitative variables were described using central
tendency and dispersion measures.

The choice of the statistical method used in assessing each variable was based on
their distribution pattern. The categorical variables were analyzed by the chi-square
test and the continuous variables by the mean with the Student's t-test. Continuous variables with irregular distribution were analyzed by the Mann-Whitney
Test. Values of P <0.05 were considered significant. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)
(Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (FMUSP), São Paulo, Brazil) 20.0
was used for analysis of such calculations. Initially, the patients from the survivors’
group were compared to patients from the non-survivors’ group and, subsequently, the
secondary outcomes were compared from a value of fluid balance according to the analysis
of sensitivity and specificity for hospital mortality.

A binary logistic regression analysis was also performed applying stepwise selection
with backward elimination in order to identify independent risk factors and control
confounding effects (variables mutually adjusted). Variables with significant probability
(P-value) less than 0.05 were considered as candidates, and they were removed in each
step if they presented probability (P-value) higher or equal to 0.10. Afterward, the selected variables for the regression
model were tested to evaluate pairwise interaction possibilities, and those variables
with interactions were corrected in the main regression model. A bootstrap procedure
based on 10,000 bootstrap samples was applied in the regression model to investigate
the stability of coefficients and predictive ability of the variables included in
model. In addition, to verify any possible confounding effects of variability in the
clinical practice from the three centers, a dummy variable about centers was included
in the main regression model. The estimated cumulative 90-day survival was observed
using a Kaplan-Meier curve.

Results

The study included 479 patients (mean age 61.2 years, 51.1% male). The majority of
the patients were ASA II and the most prevalent surgery was of the gastrointestinal
tract. While still in the hospital, 8.8% of the patients died. Comparing survivors
and non-survivors, there was a statistically significant difference upon univariate
analysis for male subjects, those with high SAPS 3, ASA II and III, patients with
higher fluid balance during surgery and those requiring vasopressors and blood transfusions
intraoperatively (Table 1).

However, the independent variables that influenced hospital mortality were SAPS 3,
ASA and high intraoperative fluid balance. The regression model found good area under
the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) (AUC) equal 0.835 and 95% confidence interval
(CI) 0.799 to 0.868 (Table 2).

In addition, in logistic regression even adding the centers to verify a possible confounding
effect of variability in clinical practice from the three hospitals, it found that
SAPS 3 (OR = 1.050; 95% CI 1.026 to 1.074), ASA (OR = 1.919; 95% CI 1.295 to 2.844)
and high intraoperative fluid balance per 100 mL (OR = 1.025; 95% CI 1.009 to 1.042)
still remained independent variables from death.

To determine the best cut-off point to discriminate excessive from non-excessive fluid
balance, tests of sensitivity and specificity were performed correlating hospital
death and fluid balance. The area under the ROC was 0.7 (0.65 to 0.74) and the optimal
fluid balance value found to discriminate hospital mortality was 2,000 mL (sensitivity
of 47.62% and specificity of 84.21%; Figure 1). Patients with excessive fluid balance had higher hospital mortality compared to
the other patients (18.7% vs. 5.9%, P <0.001).

Table 3.Comparison of patients with or without excessive fluid balance

In the assessment by the Kaplan-Meier method, there was a statistically significant
difference in patient survival up to 90 days. Patients with excessive fluid balance
showed a lower survival rate (Figure 2).

Figure 2.Kaplan-Meier curve among patients with or without excessive fluid balance up to 90 days.

Discussion

The present study demonstrates higher organ (especially cardiovascular, neurological
and respiratory) dysfunction and infection in the ICU in patients with excessive intraoperative
fluid balance. It is noteworthy that this study was multicenter and involved a general
population of high-risk surgery. Therefore, fluid balance can be overestimated for
some surgeries.

The current clinical practice for fluid administered in the perioperative period remains
controversial. A comparison of 19 different studies showed that fluid replacement
included in early hemodynamic optimization improves the prognosis of surgical patients
[23].

However, fluid overload and saline consequences have been shown in the literature
[24], which eliminates the preference for a liberal fluid management. The adverse effects
of volume overload are more evident in the lungs, where fluid resuscitation can lead
to acute pulmonary edema compromising gas exchange and making the patients more susceptible
to infections. Gastrointestinal tract edema increases postoperative ileus and gastric
emptying times, and reduces lymphatic drainage and oxygenation, consequently impairing
anastomotic healing [25]. Thus, the evaluation of intraoperative fluid balance can contribute to a restrictive
strategy of fluid perioperatively.

Overall, volume overload results in tissue and interstitial edema, leading to poor
diffusion of oxygen and metabolites, distortion of tissue architecture with obstruction
of capillary blood flow and lymphatic drainage, and disorders of the interaction between
cells. All these factors contribute to progressive organ dysfunction. The effects
are even more pronounced in encapsulated organs such as the kidneys and liver because
of their limited ability to accommodate additional volumes without increasing interstitial
pressure and impairing blood flow [26,27].

Myocardial edema may worsen ventricular function, resulting in deterioration of oxygen
supply and cardiac conduction [28]. Excessive intraoperative volume can also lead to increased demand for cardiac function,
displacing the heart’s Starling curve and culminating in increased cardiac morbidity.
Indeed, in the current study, it was determined that patients with excessive fluid
balance presented more cardiovascular problems.

Our findings suggest, in agreement with Shields et al. [29], that there is a close connection between excessive intravascular volume and increased
mortality, morbidity and length of hospital stay in this population.

Other studies have compared liberal versus restrictive fluid administration to clarify
the best perioperative management. However, the development of guidelines becomes
a difficult task since scientific evidence with multicenter randomized trials is rare
and not consensual about the optimal amount of fluid in patients [29]. Hence, there is a varied regimen of fluid replacement without a uniform definition
of what is restrictive and liberal, as well as variations in the timing of the perioperative
period studied. For this reason, our study has relevance.

Nisanevich et al. [2] compared groups of patients submitted to abdominal surgery who received 4 or 12 ml/kg
of hydration. The strict regime was accompanied by drastic reduction of hospitalization
and time to lung recovery. The patients also had fewer complications and moderate
weight gain postoperatively.

Lobo et al. [30] evaluated the postoperative period and reported a decrease in the incidence of complications,
especially gastrointestinal, and shorter hospital stay in patients who were restricted
to ≤2 L per day of crystalloid solution when compared to patients who received the
standard regimen of 3 L per day.

Evidence suggests that a positive fluid balance of 5 to 10% of body weight gain is
associated, in critically ill patients, with worse organ dysfunction and prognosis
in the postoperative period of elective surgeries. Furthermore, in this study it was
verified that urine output in the first 24 hours postoperatively in patients with
excessive fluid balance was worse than in other patients. There is no evidence suggesting
that the positive fluid balance brings any benefit for renal function [27].

Another study by Holte et al. [31] in patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy demonstrated the superiority
of a restrictive over a liberal regime only in the preservation of lung function and
hypoxemia, without any other benefit.

This study has limitations, including the fact that we did not assess the postoperative
fluid management, as well as fluid expansion and fluid maintenance intraoperatively
were not separately evaluated, because our proposal was that the study represented
a real clinical practice, which does not invalidate our results considering the statistical
analysis applied. Moreover, this was not the goal of the study, which was based on
intraoperative fluid balance. Besides, the fluid balance mensuration was estimated
instead of directly measured by, for example, weight gain. Furthermore, we only considered
fluid balance rather than the amount of fluid infusion. This can be explained by the
fact that each type of surgery has different characteristic intraoperative fluid losses
and they could require different volumes. In spite of the study limitations, there
are only a few multicenter studies that have evaluated or compared intraoperative
infusion resuscitation strategies in a general population of high-risk surgeries.
Although some current trends are for a restrictive practice [25,32], further studies are still needed to consolidate this issue.

Other limitations should be considered, such as the exclusion of diabetic patients
since they are often subjected to major surgery; however, these patients could present
an imbalance that directly affects the calculation of the fluid balance; it means
they could have a higher uncompensated metabolic probability at any point during surgery,
which could affect fluid replacement and hence the fluid balance calculation [17]. This study also did not consider blood loss in fluid balance; this option was based
on variations that may occur among observers in computing blood loss. Another problem
was the absence of a protocol to guide the intraoperative volume expansion, because
it could be different for real clinical practice, but it was minimized by common agreement
to follow hemodynamic parameters including blood pressure, heart rate and urine output,
according to the anesthetists’ team decision.

Conclusions

Patients with excessive intraoperative fluid balance have more postoperative organ
dysfunction, more infections, and higher length of ICU stay and hospital mortality.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. No financial support was
received for this study.

Authors' contributions

JMSJR conceived of this study, participated in the design of the study, performed
the statistical analysis and drafted the manuscript. FAMN, PMMV, MCPF, CSN, VPLM and
CPA performed the collection of data. LMSM performed the statistical analysis, helped
in the interpretation of data and drafted the manuscript. FAMN, AMRRO, LFD and LMSM
helped in revising the draft of the manuscript. MJCC and LMSM helped in the final
revision and writing of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the teams from the three hospitals for their help in collecting
data.

This report describes a cohort observational clinical study. The author states that
the report includes every item in the STROBE checklist for cohort observational clinical
studies.

This report has a primary or secondary end-point that is either cost or a surrogate
for cost (for example, time).